Mexico Under Siege
 

[URL="http://projects.latimes.com/siege/#/its-a-war"]Mexico Under Siege[/URL]

A good multimedia page about the Mexican Drug War.

I had no idea nearly 10,000 people have died in Mexico...since 2007.

Its bad down there!!!

Legalize narcotics and control them the way we do alcohol and tobacco. Problem solved.

[QUOTE=saqwarrior;2631849]Legalize narcotics and control them the way we do alcohol and tobacco. Problem solved.[/QUOTE]
solved for who?


and i dont think that would help/ happen

[QUOTE=saqwarrior;2631849]Legalize narcotics and control them the way we do alcohol and tobacco. Problem solved.[/QUOTE]

That would fix the drug corruption in the police force how? It's a bit more complex of an issue than the silly little stoners think.

[QUOTE=VRT MBasile;2631897]That would fix the drug corruption in the police force how? It's a bit more complex of an issue than the silly little stoners think.[/QUOTE]

Your snide insult aside, if you legalize and regulate narcotics, you eliminate the need for a black market, thereby negating law enforcement corruption because the items are legal.

And for the record, I don't use narcotics.

[QUOTE=sigma pi;2631894]solved for who?[/quote]

For everyone.

[QUOTE=sigma pi;2631894]and i dont think that would help/ happen[/QUOTE]

You're entitled to your opinion.

[QUOTE=saqwarrior;2637481]Your snide insult aside, if you legalize and regulate narcotics, you eliminate the need for a black market, thereby negating law enforcement corruption because the items are legal.

And for the record, I don't use narcotics.[/QUOTE]

On the flip side it will have to substancially decrease the cost of said narcotics which won't happen due to the cost of regulation. So the black market narcs will continue to flow at the current rate.

If the cost of legal narcotics were to substantially decrease the black marketeers would simply increase production and flow. Simple economics for a complex problem. You see it is a little more complex than you propose sir.

[QUOTE=Shayhan27;2637552]On the flip side it will have to substancially decrease the cost of said narcotics[/quote]

Why?

[QUOTE=Shayhan27;2637552]which won't happen due to the cost of regulation.[/quote]

Says who? Controlled substances are [i]already controlled[/i]. The infrastructure is already in place.

[QUOTE=Shayhan27;2637552]So the black market narcs will continue to flow at the current rate.[/quote]

Based on what? Your prior statements? Where are you getting this information from? I get the feeling you're making it up as you go along.

[QUOTE=Shayhan27;2637552]If the cost of legal narcotics were to substantially decrease the black marketeers would simply increase production and flow. Simple economics for a complex problem. [COLOR="Red"]You see it is a little more complex than you propose sir[/COLOR].[/QUOTE]

I don't think so. I think you're making excuses and over-complicating it because you want to validate your own opinion.

[quote="Wall Street Journal"]Supporters of prohibition blamed the consumers, and some went so far as to argue that those who violated the laws deserved whatever ills befell them. But by 1933, most Americans blamed prohibition itself.

When repeal came, it was not just with the support of those with a taste for alcohol, but also those who disliked and even hated it but could no longer ignore the dreadful consequences of a failed prohibition. They saw what most Americans still fail to see today: That a failed drug prohibition can cause greater harm than the drug it was intended to banish.

Consider the consequences of drug prohibition today: 500,000 people incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails for nonviolent drug-law violations; 1.8 million drug arrests last year; tens of billions of taxpayer dollars expended annually to fund a drug war that 76% of Americans say has failed; millions now marked for life as former drug felons; many thousands dying each year from drug overdoses that have more to do with prohibitionist policies than the drugs themselves, and tens of thousands more needlessly infected with AIDS and Hepatitis C because those same policies undermine and block responsible public-health policies.

And look abroad. At Afghanistan, where a third or more of the national economy is both beneficiary and victim of the failed global drug prohibition regime. At Mexico, which makes Chicago under Al Capone look like a day in the park. And elsewhere in Latin America, where prohibition-related crime, violence and corruption undermine civil authority and public safety, and mindless drug eradication campaigns wreak environmental havoc.[/quote]

Full article [url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122843683581681375.html?mod=googlenews_wsj]here.[/url]

[QUOTE=saqwarrior;2631849]Legalize narcotics and control them the way we do alcohol and tobacco. Problem solved.[/QUOTE]


Medical treatment for mild vices like alcohol and tabacco costs this country millions every year.

Imagine how much worse it would be if we had to deal loads and loads of druggies: people ODing, more stealing to fund habits, more people on welfare, more drug wars as dealers fight over territory, etc.

[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;2640508]Medical treatment for mild vices like alcohol and tabacco costs this country millions every year.

Imagine how much worse it would be if we had to deal loads and loads of druggies: people ODing, more stealing to fund habits, more people on welfare, more drug wars as dealers fight over territory, etc.[/QUOTE]

Actual freedom is not subject to dismissal because of medical costs. If medical costs are a serious reason then we should say goodbye to cigarettes, fast food, alcohol, candy, etc. to be consistent. Cigarettes are both highly addictive and unhealthy, yet they remain legal for several reasons. Narcotics, weed in particular, is subject to a different standard.

Why would there be drug dealers fighting over territories if narcotics were legal? I'd just got to Walgreens.

^^^ true people can brew their own beer and roll their own cigs, but most don't because we're not big on working for our vices. Why when 7/11 sells it pre-made.

And even if drugs of any kind were legalized, I don't see a flood gate of new junkies hitting the streets. We have social means of hampering drug use. For example; employers can still demand their people be sober and clean.

[QUOTE=newyorkreload;2640601]^^^ true people can brew their own beer and roll their own cigs, but most don't because we're not big on working for our vices. Why when 7/11 sells it pre-made.

And even if drugs of any kind were legalized, I don't see a flood gate of new junkies hitting the streets. We have social means of hampering drug use. For example; employers can still demand their people be sober and clean.[/QUOTE]

Yup.

DUI/DWI, employee drug tests, public intoxication, etc. will all continue to apply. Legalizing narcotics won't create an instant Sodom and Gomorrah.

[QUOTE=Superglue WRX;2640614]Yup.

DUI/DWI, employee drug tests, public intoxication, etc. will all continue to apply. Legalizing narcotics won't create an instant Sodom and Gomorrah.[/QUOTE]

dammit. :( Oh well, there goes that idea.

[QUOTE=Superglue WRX;2640614]Yup.

DUI/DWI, employee drug tests, public intoxication, etc. will all continue to apply. [B]Legalizing narcotics won't create an instant Sodom and Gomorrah[/B].[/QUOTE]

San Francisco already exists....